It requires that the President gives 48 hours notice to Congress that he is taking military action, and any action lasting longer then 60 days requires a Congressional vote to continue sustainment.

If he failed to give proper notice under the law - which I'm sure he did - that's one thing. It's quite another to state that we cannot engage in military action without a formal declaration of war. Mind you - Did we sign a peace treaty with Tripoli when last we went to war with them? Or was it just an armistice?

03-20-2011, 11:53 AM

PoliCon

Quote:

Originally Posted by fettpett

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Aliens and Seditions Act

which was opposed and fought against. Show me any action taken against the constitutionality of the Barbary wars for example.

03-20-2011, 12:06 PM

fettpett

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoliCon

which was opposed and fought against. Show me any action taken against the constitutionality of the Barbary wars for example.

On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.
In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

Enterprise capturing Tripoli
The schooner USS Enterprise defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a fierce but one-sided battle on August 1, 1801.
In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed "An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers", authorizing the President to "... employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite ... for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas."[14]
The U.S Navy went unchallenged on the sea, but still the question remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with an increase in military force and deployment of many of the Navy's best ships to the region throughout 1802. The USS Argus, Chesapeake, Constellation, Constitution, Enterprise, Intrepid, Philadelphia and Syren all saw service during the war under the overall command of Commodore Edward Preble. Throughout 1803, Preble set up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets.

Jefferson went to Congress and asked for a deceleration of War, Congress just didn't give it to him, but authorized use of force.

There is a huge difference between going to Congress and asking for a Deceleration of War and not getting it (while authorizing use of force, which IMHO is splitting hairs). And a President TELLING Congress that he is going to use military
force.

Also, I was pointing out that the Founding Fathers were just as capable of passing and doing actions that were considered Unconstitutional.

Jefferson went to Congress and asked for a deceleration of War, Congress just didn't give it to him, but authorized use of force.

There is a huge difference between going to Congress and asking for a Deceleration of War and not getting it (while authorizing use of force, which IMHO is splitting hairs). And a President TELLING Congress that he is going to use military
force.

Also, I was pointing out that the Founding Fathers were just as capable of passing and doing actions that were considered Unconstitutional.

Okay - I'm just making sure we're not engaged in another one of those "you must have a formal declaration of war" discussions.

03-20-2011, 12:15 PM

fettpett

Obama also said this in 2007

Quote:

﻿﻿‎The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.